Conventional biodetection utilizes immobilized probes to detect targets in solution. Such systems often include DNA probes to detect DNA and RNA targets, antibody probes to detect proteinaceous, carbohydrate, and small organic molecule targets, and aptamer probes to detect nucleic acid, proteinaceous, carbohydrate, and small organic molecule targets. These systems can include conventional ELISA (an enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay) that can take place in a macrowell format (e.g. a microtiter well), as well as microarray formats in which the immobilized probes can be constructed or “printed” in spots less than a hundred microns in diameter. Such methods are extensively practiced today in clinical and research applications (see, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 5,405,783 to Pirrung, et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,054,270 to Southern, U.S. Pat. No. 6,101,946 to Martinsky, and Weeraratna et al. “Gene Expression Profiling From Microarrays to Medicine”, J. Clin. Immunol. 24:213 (2004), the “Packard Biochip Arrayer” from Perkin Elmer, Wellesley, Mass.).
In all of these methods, there is a binding reaction between the probe and the target, and this binding reaction is generally governed by the reaction kinetics of multiple reactant (generally bi-molecular) systems. Because the probes are immobilized, the rate of reaction is primarily determined by the concentration of the target in solution.
In many of the systems, the rate of the reaction is important. For example, in certain nucleic acid hybridizations, the reaction can require over 48 hours to complete, which can increase the cost of the analysis, or reduce the number of analyses that can take place. Furthermore, if not all of the hybridizations react to completion, then the quantitation of the analyses can be incorrect, mixing as it would the results from hybridizations at different levels of completion.
In an important application, the medical outcomes of human infections (e.g. ventilator acquired pneumonia, infectious meningitis, bacteremia, and the like) can be significantly affected by the length of time required to perform analysis of the amount and the identity of bacteria and the susceptibility of the bacteria to various antibiotics. Conventionally, the time for analysis can be 24 to 48 hours or more, during which time the condition of the patient can deteriorate as the bacteria multiply (see, for example, U.S. Pat. No. 4,778,758 to Ericsson et al., U.S. Pat. No. 3,935,073 to Waters, U.S. Pat. No. 6,043,048 to Johnston et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 4,259,442 to Gayral). Contemporary microbial analysis starts with growth of bacteria from a clinical specimen, such as sputum, blood, and the like, to high concentration in culture medium, typically on the order of 100 million organisms per milliliter. Clinical specimens may contain only a few individual organisms (e.g. in testing blood for bacteremia), and diagnostic thresholds even for high-concentration specimens are typically several thousand-fold lower than quantitative culturing detection limits.
After achieving initial bulk growth up to an adequate working concentration, the operator then performs one or more biochemical tests or growth on selective media that incorporate selective biochemical reagents. Thus the standardized current procedures require at least two sequential growth cycles, each typically requiring many hours to complete.
Additionally, drug susceptibility testing requires determination of failure to grow in selective media. Proof of the absence of growth requires additional time in culture over that which might be required of a direct indicator of cell death. It is well recognized in the medical community that such methods, attempting to prove the absence of growth, in certain circumstances produce results that do not correlate adequately with the actual results of treatment.
As a result of these and other serious deficiencies, contemporary practice fails to provide the attending physician with specific diagnostic information that the physician needs in order to select an effective drug to treat the infection within the desired time window. For example, in ventilator-associated pneumonia, clinical research has demonstrated that the odds ratio for increased morbidity and mortality after 24 hours of ineffective treatment remains at 7:1 despite a change to effective treatment. That is, unless the physician initiates effective treatment, i.e. anti-microbial drugs of a type and concentration adequate to quickly kill the infectious organisms, within substantially less than 24 hours from symptom onset, a change from ineffective to effective therapy will not significantly improve outcomes for approximately 87% of patients so treated.
Physicians are well aware of the risk of delay, and so prescribe treatment typically using a combination of broad-spectrum drugs selected empirically, based on a particular hospital or community history of microbial drug resistance or susceptibility. Clinical research has demonstrated that such empiric drug treatment is ineffective in approximately 25% to 50% of cases. Additionally, exposure of a patient to inadequate therapy not only increases the individual patient's costs and medical risks, but also increases the likelihood of fostering the emergence of resistant organisms. The latter problem increases the medical risk not only for the individual patient, but for all other individuals in the hospital and community who may later become infected with resistant organisms.
It is well recognized in the clinical research literature that prior exposure of a patient to ineffective antibiotics constitutes a significant risk factor in the later emergence of resistant organisms in that patient. For these and other reasons, it is desirable within the medical community to devise diagnostic methods that do not suffer the deficiencies of delay and inaccuracy that characterize current practices.
In theory, alternatives to microbial growth culturing include direct microbial analytical methods such as immunoassays of various kinds. Antibodies against various microbes are commercially available or may be readily developed. In fact, many different types of immunoassay are now routinely used in certain aspects of diagnosis for microbial infection.
However, none yet exist for routine bacterial identification, quantitation, and drug susceptibility testing for many serious infectious diseases.
Similarly, the rapid detection of various microbes such as bacteria, viruses, molds, and the like are also desirable for testing contamination in food and water, and in detecting the presence of potential biological warfare agents. In the food industry, many products are commercially available for detecting microbial contaminants. In certain circumstances, some of these provide results in approximately 24 hours for a limited set of particular organisms. However, all commercial products still require sample enrichment by means of bacterial culturing before applying the tests.
In the research literature concerning defense for biological warfare, many rapid detection devices have also been described, including some that provide results in one hour or even less. Furthermore, some such devices do not require growth cultures before being used.
However, the sensitivity of devices so far described in the literature for food testing or bio-defense falls far short of the requirements for medical diagnostics. Furthermore, these non-diagnostic applications do not require drug susceptibility testing and so the aforesaid devices do not provide it nor apparently do they lend themselves to adaptation for such a purpose.
A key limitation with these devices and with laboratory methods such as ELISA is their dependency on the target analyte concentration. They rely on passive diffusion of target to an immuno-capture or other detection surface. The rate of occurrence of intimate probe-to-target proximity events, and hence the detection reaction rate, depends on analyte concentration in the sample solution or suspension.
In order to increase sensitivity with these devices, it is necessary to substantially increase analyte concentration. Researchers have described several stratagems to increase target analyte concentration and also speed the response time for analysis of various bio-molecular and microbial targets. For example, the electrophoresis of target to the probe has been described before by Nanogen, Inc. of San Diego, Calif. (e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 5,849,486 to Heller, U.S. Pat. No. 6,017,696 to Heller, U.S. Pat. No. 6,051,380 to Sosnowski et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,099,803 to Ackley et al., U.S. Pat. No. 6,245,508 to Heller et al., and U.S. Pat. No. 6,379,897 to Weidenhammer et al.). These systems and methods describe an addressable array of electrodes to which individual probes are attached at each individual electrode, and then which are sequentially and very rapidly reacted with probes. The reported increase in speed of reaction between the target and probes is hundreds or thousands fold. These systems, however, suffer from a number of limitations, including the need to sequentially immobilize probes on the addressable electrodes, the need to perform sequential reactions, and limitations on the detection methods that can be employed due to the higher voltages that are required for electrophoresis, precluding the use of transparent electrodes (e.g. through the use of indium tin oxide), that cannot operate at the voltages used by the Nanogen system. Furthermore, the higher voltages at which the Nanogen system operate generate oxidation products that are potentially harmful to the probes or targets, and which therefore requires the use of complex passivation surfaces to protect the probes and targets. Systems that could make use of high-speed microarray printing, which did not require complex passivation surfaces, and which did not require the electronic and other control necessary for addressable electrodes would greatly reduce the expense and complexity of such systems.
With regards to the use of immobilized probes for the detection of bacteria or other microorganisms, it is also of use to determine the antimicrobial activity of different therapeutic agents, such as antibiotics. There has been a profusion of systems that use nucleic acid or antibody probes to determine the identity of bacteria in a sample (e.g. U.S. Pat. No. 5,656,432 to Clayerys et al. and U.S. Pat. No. 6,403,367 to Cheng et al.). It is difficult with these systems to determine susceptibility to antimicrobial agents, given the difficulty of finding nucleic acid or antibody markers that reliably correlate with antimicrobial resistance or behavior.
It is to the solution of these and other problems that the present invention is directed.